Citation Nr: 0608587
Decision Date: 03/24/06 Archive Date: 04/04/06
DOCKET NO. 04-33 419 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in
Phoenix, Arizona
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to an increased evaluation for bilateral hearing
loss, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling.
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Suzie S. Gaston, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from November 1971 to May
1981.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(hereinafter Board) on appeal from a March 2003, by the
Phoenix, Arizona, Regional Office (RO), which denied the
veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for
bilateral hearing loss. The veteran perfected a timely
appeal to the above decision.
The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management
Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the veteran
if further action is required on his part.
REMAND
In his substantive appeal (VA Form 9), received in September
2004, the veteran requested a hearing at the RO before a
Veterans Law Judge (VLJ), formerly known as a Member of the
Board. This type of hearing often is referred to as a Travel
Board hearing. The evidence shows that this hearing was
scheduled for September 2005, but prior to his hearing, the
veteran indicated that he would be out of town and requested
that his hearing be rescheduled. The hearing was rescheduled
for a hearing to be conducted in October 2005; however, he
again requested that the hearing be cancelled.
Subsequently, the veteran was scheduled for a
"videoconference" hearing in Phoenix in February 2006.
However, in a report of contact (VA Form 119), dated February
3, 2006, the veteran indicated that he would not be able to
attend the hearing due to employment in Reno, Nevada; he
requested that the hearing be rescheduled. Accordingly, in a
February 2006 letter, the RO informed the veteran that a
videoconference hearing before a VLJ was being scheduled for
March 22, 2006. But, on the day of the hearing, the veteran
contacted the RO and indicated that he was still working in
Las Vegas, and it was too far to drive to Phoenix for the
hearing. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(c) (2005). Therefore, in
his March 22, 2006 correspondence, the veteran requested that
the hearing be rescheduled. Therefore, a remand is in order
so that the veteran may be afforded another opportunity to
report for his requested hearing. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.702,
20.704 (2005). Accordingly, this case hereby is REMANDED to
the RO via the Appeals Management Center, in Washington, DC,
for the following:
The veteran should be rescheduled for a
video conference hearing.
The veteran is informed that he has repeatedly failed to
appear for a hearing. If again fails to appear for a hearing
and fails to report his intent in an untimely manner, his
request to reschedule may not be honored.
Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board in
accordance with applicable procedures. The appellant has the
right to submit additional evidence and argument on the
matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v.
West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law
requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims for additional development or other
appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.
See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2005).
_________________________________________________
H. N. SCHWARTZ
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2005).